By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
The House must present the nine bills remaining from the 2023-24 term to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for a signing decision, the Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
Judge Thomas Cameron, writing for the majority, ruled that Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel correctly ruled that the Constitution requires the House to present the bills, though they were the bills of a prior Legislature.
Cameron, joined by Judge Daniel Korobkin, overturned Patel’s decision not to issue an order compelling the House to do so in Senate v. House of Representatives (COA Docket No. 374786).
“To hold that a writ of mandamus cannot be entered in the face of a clear violation of a clear constitutional duty simply because the constitutional provision itself does not provide a deadline for performance would render the provision’s mandate nothing more than ‘a voluntary obligation that a person can fulfill or not at his whim, or merely a hope or a wish,’” Cameron wrote, quoting prior case law.
On the merits of the case, the court ruled that although the Constitution does not set a schedule for the originating chamber responsible for the bill to present a bill, the Constitution does “provide that presentment is the next, mandatory step after a bill is approved by both chambers. We decline to abuse the doctrine of ripeness to override this mandatory directive of our Constitution.”
Cameron wrote that the constitutional text, read alone, does give some merit to the House’s argument that the Constitution merely addresses the prerequisite that before a bill can become law, it must be presented to the governor for approval. However, he cited the official record of the 1961-62 Constitutional Convention.
One delegate said at the time that when it comes to a Senate bill passed in identical form in both the House and Senate, it was “the duty of the secretary of the Senate to … present that bill to the governor. Sometimes a bill can be speedily printed, sometimes it takes two or three weeks to get a bill printed…”
To arguments from the House that “convention colloquies are ‘not decisive as to the intent of the general convention,” Cameron said the court agrees.
“But this does not change our analysis. It is the assumptions inherent in the excerpt from the Constitutional Convention that we find persuasive; the ratifiers believed that the duty of presentment immediately followed (with exceptions for reasonable delays in preparation) the passage of a bill,” he wrote in a footnote. “We acknowledge that the statement of one speaker is an ‘individual expression of concepts as the speaker perceive[d] them[.]’ But, as our Supreme Court recognized, such debates are considerable ‘in the absence of guidance in the constitutional language. … (The Constitution) does not indicate any time requirement for the duty of presentment it provides. Nor do we have any evidence of the intent of the people, generally, at the time the provision was enacted. Without such guidance, our consideration of the discussion at the Constitutional Convention is instructive.”
House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, previously contended the House was unable to present bills from a prior Legislature. A message left seeking comment with his spokesperson was not immediately returned. The court held nothing in the Constitution speaks to what happens to bills a prior Legislature passed.
Should the House appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, it would face the Court’s 6-1 Democratic majority. Monday’s ruling from Cameron, appointed to the bench by former Gov. Rick Snyder, and Korobkin, appointed to the bench by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, suggests an appeal might be a longshot.
The court remanded the case to Patel for issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering the House to present the bills. The court said Patel could set the deadline for presentment at her discretion.
Among the nine bills in question is one (HB 6058 of 2024) that would require governments to pay a greater share of their employees’ health insurance premiums.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, who championed the Senate’s lawsuit against the House, celebrated the ruling.
“No matter how deep our political differences, the Constitution must be followed. Skirting the law is bad enough, but it’s so much worse that they did it in the name of stopping bills that would have helped thousands of their constituents make ends meet,” she said in a statement. “I’m proud to fight this fight on behalf of educators, first responders and the many hardworking folks who keep our communities running and deserve to have this legislation enacted. I hope this case serves as a warning for all future legislators – following the law is your oath, and you will be held accountable for doing your job.”
Judge Christopher Murray concurred in the ruling’s holding that the Legislature has a clear constitutional duty to present bills to the governor that both houses passed but said the period during which the Legislature must present enrolled bills to the governor has expired. He dissented from the order for the House to present the bills and said no remedy is available.
The Michigan Education Association, a top supporter of the bill to reduce the percentage of health insurance premiums paid by teachers and other public employees, hailed the ruling.
“On behalf of school employees across our state, we would like to congratulate Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks and her Senate colleagues for their massive court victory on Monday, as well as thank them for standing up for teachers, school support staff, higher education employees and the students we serve,” said MEA President and CEO Chandra Madafferi in a statement. “We urge Speaker Hall to send this critical legislation to the governor for her signature.”
The remaining legislation still held in the House includes three bills allowing Detroit history museums to seek a property tax millage from Wayne County voters (HB 4177 of 2023, HB 5817 of 2024 and HB 5818 of 2024); bills that would put corrections officers into the State Police pension system (HB 4665 of 2023, HB 4666 of 2023 and HB 4667 of 2023) and exempting public assistance, disability and worker’s compensation from garnishment to repay debts (HB 4900 of 2024 and HB 4901 of 2024).
A spokesperson for Whitmer, who has given no indication on what she thinks of the bills’ merits, said the governor’s office is reviewing the ruling.
Gongwer News Service
The House must present the nine bills remaining from the 2023-24 term to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for a signing decision, the Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
Judge Thomas Cameron, writing for the majority, ruled that Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel correctly ruled that the Constitution requires the House to present the bills, though they were the bills of a prior Legislature.
Cameron, joined by Judge Daniel Korobkin, overturned Patel’s decision not to issue an order compelling the House to do so in Senate v. House of Representatives (COA Docket No. 374786).
“To hold that a writ of mandamus cannot be entered in the face of a clear violation of a clear constitutional duty simply because the constitutional provision itself does not provide a deadline for performance would render the provision’s mandate nothing more than ‘a voluntary obligation that a person can fulfill or not at his whim, or merely a hope or a wish,’” Cameron wrote, quoting prior case law.
On the merits of the case, the court ruled that although the Constitution does not set a schedule for the originating chamber responsible for the bill to present a bill, the Constitution does “provide that presentment is the next, mandatory step after a bill is approved by both chambers. We decline to abuse the doctrine of ripeness to override this mandatory directive of our Constitution.”
Cameron wrote that the constitutional text, read alone, does give some merit to the House’s argument that the Constitution merely addresses the prerequisite that before a bill can become law, it must be presented to the governor for approval. However, he cited the official record of the 1961-62 Constitutional Convention.
One delegate said at the time that when it comes to a Senate bill passed in identical form in both the House and Senate, it was “the duty of the secretary of the Senate to … present that bill to the governor. Sometimes a bill can be speedily printed, sometimes it takes two or three weeks to get a bill printed…”
To arguments from the House that “convention colloquies are ‘not decisive as to the intent of the general convention,” Cameron said the court agrees.
“But this does not change our analysis. It is the assumptions inherent in the excerpt from the Constitutional Convention that we find persuasive; the ratifiers believed that the duty of presentment immediately followed (with exceptions for reasonable delays in preparation) the passage of a bill,” he wrote in a footnote. “We acknowledge that the statement of one speaker is an ‘individual expression of concepts as the speaker perceive[d] them[.]’ But, as our Supreme Court recognized, such debates are considerable ‘in the absence of guidance in the constitutional language. … (The Constitution) does not indicate any time requirement for the duty of presentment it provides. Nor do we have any evidence of the intent of the people, generally, at the time the provision was enacted. Without such guidance, our consideration of the discussion at the Constitutional Convention is instructive.”
House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, previously contended the House was unable to present bills from a prior Legislature. A message left seeking comment with his spokesperson was not immediately returned. The court held nothing in the Constitution speaks to what happens to bills a prior Legislature passed.
Should the House appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, it would face the Court’s 6-1 Democratic majority. Monday’s ruling from Cameron, appointed to the bench by former Gov. Rick Snyder, and Korobkin, appointed to the bench by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, suggests an appeal might be a longshot.
The court remanded the case to Patel for issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering the House to present the bills. The court said Patel could set the deadline for presentment at her discretion.
Among the nine bills in question is one (HB 6058 of 2024) that would require governments to pay a greater share of their employees’ health insurance premiums.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, who championed the Senate’s lawsuit against the House, celebrated the ruling.
“No matter how deep our political differences, the Constitution must be followed. Skirting the law is bad enough, but it’s so much worse that they did it in the name of stopping bills that would have helped thousands of their constituents make ends meet,” she said in a statement. “I’m proud to fight this fight on behalf of educators, first responders and the many hardworking folks who keep our communities running and deserve to have this legislation enacted. I hope this case serves as a warning for all future legislators – following the law is your oath, and you will be held accountable for doing your job.”
Judge Christopher Murray concurred in the ruling’s holding that the Legislature has a clear constitutional duty to present bills to the governor that both houses passed but said the period during which the Legislature must present enrolled bills to the governor has expired. He dissented from the order for the House to present the bills and said no remedy is available.
The Michigan Education Association, a top supporter of the bill to reduce the percentage of health insurance premiums paid by teachers and other public employees, hailed the ruling.
“On behalf of school employees across our state, we would like to congratulate Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks and her Senate colleagues for their massive court victory on Monday, as well as thank them for standing up for teachers, school support staff, higher education employees and the students we serve,” said MEA President and CEO Chandra Madafferi in a statement. “We urge Speaker Hall to send this critical legislation to the governor for her signature.”
The remaining legislation still held in the House includes three bills allowing Detroit history museums to seek a property tax millage from Wayne County voters (HB 4177 of 2023, HB 5817 of 2024 and HB 5818 of 2024); bills that would put corrections officers into the State Police pension system (HB 4665 of 2023, HB 4666 of 2023 and HB 4667 of 2023) and exempting public assistance, disability and worker’s compensation from garnishment to repay debts (HB 4900 of 2024 and HB 4901 of 2024).
A spokesperson for Whitmer, who has given no indication on what she thinks of the bills’ merits, said the governor’s office is reviewing the ruling.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
